摘要
目的:比较釉瓷上釉和不同抛光磨头处理后,烤瓷表面粗糙度的不同,为临床选择抛光方法提供实验依据。方法:制作圆盘状瓷片60片,随机分为6组,每组10片。以釉瓷上釉作为对照组1组,第2组至第6组均分为绿砂石打磨A亚组及白砂石打磨B亚组。第2组只用打磨磨头处理;第3组打磨后使用松风CER AMISTE烤瓷抛光套装磨头抛光;第4组在第3组的基础上加用松风CER AMASTER精细烤瓷抛光磨头抛光;第5组打磨后使用德国固美烤瓷抛光套装磨头抛光;第6组使用德国EVE氧化锆抛光磨头抛光。对瓷片进行粗糙度值(轮廓算术平均偏差Ra)的测量,进行统计学分析,并采用扫描电镜对表面形态进行观察。结果:4B、5B、6A和6B组与1组R a值无显著性差异(P>0.05),其余组的R a值与1组有显著性差异(P<0.05)。电镜下观察1组、4B、5B、6A和6B组瓷面较平整,其余组瓷面棱脊,凹坑较多,不平整。结论:使用砂粒较细的白砂石打磨烤瓷后,再使用抛光磨头能获得较好的抛光效果;含天然金刚石颗粒的抛光磨头能达到类似上釉的效果。
Objective： To compare the effect of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of dental ceramic surfaces, providing reference to restoration polishing in clinic. Methods： Sixty plates（10mm in diameter and 3.5mm in thickness） made of Vita ceramic, divided equally into six groups. Each group divided into two subgroups（n=5）. The glazing group served as control. Roughness of ceramic samples were measured with surface profilometry after different process, and the surface profile was observed under scanning electron microscope（SEM）. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA.Results： Roughness values measured in group 4B, 5B, 6A and 6B were comparable with control group（P〉0.05）. SEM showed fairly smooth surface in group 1,4B,6A,and 6B, while pits and ridges were seen in other groups. Conclusion： By using fine white aluminium oxide grinding head, and then polishing grinding head sequentially can achieve better polishing effect. The diamond polishing burr can achieve camparable smoothness with glazing.
出处
《中华老年口腔医学杂志》
2015年第6期329-333,共5页
Chinese Journal of Geriatric Dentistry
关键词
烤瓷
抛光
表面粗糙度
电镜
dental ceramic
polishing
surface roughness
electron microscope
